Search

This article examined the past performance of 36 Israeli child development account funds from 12 provident funds managers over three levels of risk for each manager. The results revealed that at times there was a large gap between the fund’s stated level of risk and the actual returns. In most cases, an increase in risk was accompanied by an increase in returns, except for medium-risk managers. Two managers failed to achieve above-average returns in any of their funds, regardless of their levels of risk. Finally, the managers who tended to be successful during periods of negative returns were generally those who sought average returns rather than those who tried for outsized returns. This study’s findings should provide parents with some insights to consider when choosing the child development accounts in which they want to invest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) and the risk adjusted equivalent (RALOS) have been used as quality metrics. The latter measures entail either ratio or difference formulations or ICU random effects (RE), which have not been previously compared. Methods From calendar year 2016 data of an adult ICU registry-database (Australia & New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) CORE), LOS predictive models were established using linear (LMM) and generalised linear (GLMM) mixed models. Model fixed effects quality-metric formulations were estimated as RALOSR for LMM (geometric mean derived from log(ICU LOS)) and GLMM (day) and observed minus expected ICU LOS (OMELOS from GLMM). Metric confidence intervals (95%CI) were estimated by bootstrapping; random effects (RE) were predicted for LMM and GLMM. Forest-plot displays of ranked quality-metric point-estimates (95%CI) were generated for ICU hospital classifications (metropolitan, private, rural/regional, and tertiary). Robust rank confidence sets (point estimate and 95%CI), both marginal (pertaining to a singular ICU) and simultaneous (pertaining to all ICU differences), were established. Results The ICU cohort was of 94,361 patients from 125 ICUs (metropolitan 16.9%, private 32.8%, rural/regional 6.4%, tertiary 43.8%). Age (mean, SD) was 61.7 (17.5) years; 58.3% were male; APACHE III severity-of-illness score 54.6 (25.7); ICU annual patient volume 1192 (702) and ICU LOS 3.2 (4.9). There was no concordance of ICU ranked model predictions, GLMM versus LMM, nor for the quality metrics used, RALOSR, OMELOS and site-specific RE for each of the ICU hospital classifications. Furthermore, there was no concordance between ICU ranking confidence sets, marginal and simultaneous for models or quality metrics. Conclusions Inference regarding adjusted ICU LOS was dependent upon the statistical estimator and the quality index used to quantify any LOS differences across ICUs. That is, there was no “one best model”; thus, ICU “performance” is determined by model choice and any rankings thereupon should be circumspect.

Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) and the risk adjusted equivalent (RALOS) have been used as quality metrics. The latter measures entail either ratio or difference formulations or ICU random effects (RE), which have not been previously compared. Methods: From calendar year 2016 data of an adult ICU registry-database (Australia & New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) CORE), LOS predictive models were established using linear (LMM) and generalised linear (GLMM) mixed models. Model fixed effects quality-metric formulations were estimated as RALOSR for LMM (geometric mean derived from log(ICU LOS)) and GLMM (day) and observed minus expected ICU LOS (OMELOS from GLMM). Metric confidence intervals (95%CI) were estimated by bootstrapping; random effects (RE) were predicted for LMM and GLMM. Forest-plot displays of ranked quality-metric point-estimates (95%CI) were generated for ICU hospital classifications (metropolitan, private, rural/regional, and tertiary). Robust rank confidence sets (point estimate and 95%CI), both marginal (pertaining to a singular ICU) and simultaneous (pertaining to all ICU differences), were established. Results: The ICU cohort was of 94,361 patients from 125 ICUs (metropolitan 16.9%, private 32.8%, rural/regional 6.4%, tertiary 43.8%). Age (mean, SD) was 61.7 (17.5) years; 58.3% were male; APACHE III severity-of-illness score 54.6 (25.7); ICU annual patient volume 1192 (702) and ICU LOS 3.2 (4.9). There was no concordance of ICU ranked model predictions, GLMM versus LMM, nor for the quality metrics used, RALOSR, OMELOS and site-specific RE for each of the ICU hospital classifications. Furthermore, there was no concordance between ICU ranking confidence sets, marginal and simultaneous for models or quality metrics. Conclusions: Inference regarding adjusted ICU LOS was dependent upon the statistical estimator and the quality index used to quantify any LOS differences across ICUs. That is, there was no "one best model"; thus, ICU "performance" is determined by model choice and any rankings thereupon should be circumspect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Control charts play an effective role in monitoring and controlling the performance of health care. It helps to determine the strategy to improve the process and identify the causes of variations. In recent years, the risk adjusted memory type control charts have received reasonable attention in monitoring surgical outcomes. In this research, we used the concept of an adaptive exponentially weighted moving average (AEWMA) control chart and proposed a new adaptive risk adjusted exponentially weighted moving average (ARAEWMA) control chart by using the accelerated failure time (AFT) regression. A real data set of the cardiac surgery patients is used for analysis and the patient condition is counted by personnet score method. The proposed ARAEWMA control chart is fitted by using the AFT model and run length profiles are computed at different shifts. The proposed ARAEWMA chart is better in shift detection and showed efficient results than the risk adjusted exponentially weighted moving average control chart. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]